Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

John H. Dalton, Secretary Of The Navy, Et Al. v. Arlen Specter Et Al.

• 1993 • 511 U.S. 462 • Rehnquist Court
In the case of John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, et al. v. Arlen Specter et al., 1993, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding military base closures and realignments recommended by an independent commission in 1991 and approved by President George H.W. Bush under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (the "Act"). The state of Pennsylvania challenged this decision as it would lead to closure or realignment affecting over 22,000 jobs at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 1993
Docket: 93-289
511 U.S. 462
114 S. Ct. 1719
128 L. Ed. 2d 497
1994 U.S. LEXIS 3778
Argued: Mar 02, 1994

John H. Dalton, Secretary Of The Navy, Et Al. v. Arlen Specter Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, et al. v. Arlen Specter et al., 1993, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding military base closures and realignments recommended by an independent commission in 1991 and approved by President George H.W. Bush under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (the "Act"). The state of Pennsylvania challenged this decision as it would lead to closure or realignment affecting over 22,000 jobs at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and argued that such decisions should be subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court held that these actions were not subject to judicial review because they fell within a political question doctrine - matters constitutionally committed to another branch of government (in this case executive) which courts typically refrain from adjudicating due their inherently non-justiciable nature. In its ruling, court emphasized Congress's clear intent in passing the Act was for swift implementation without litigation delays.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Dalton v. Specter, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case on political question grounds was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that while some aspects of base-closing decisions might be nonjusticiable due to their inherently political nature, this did not mean all disputes arising from such decisions were beyond judicial review. In his view, when a claim is made that an executive action exceeds statutory authority or violates constitutional rights - as in this case where it was alleged that Secretary Dalton had exceeded his powers under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act - courts have both jurisdiction and duty to adjudicate it. By refusing to do so, he believed they abdicated their responsibility as guardians of rule of law.

Opinion written by Justice WHRehnquist
Decided: May 23, 1994
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms